[throwaway316943]

> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

>…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it.

All these calls for censorship make me think we really are doomed to repeat history forever.

[causi]

Everyone always seems happy to carve out their own exceptions to freedom of expression. Freedom, except for racism. Freedom, except for transgenderism. Freedom, except for porn. Freedom, except for violence. Freedom, except for political dissent or mis-gendering or the promotion or criticism of a religion.

As someone who falls near the middle on most issues I probably detest a larger percentage of speakers than anyone who's solidly on the Left or the Right, but I have no issue understanding that my freedom depends on their freedom. If the people I despise are not free to speak then neither am I.

[BizarroLand]

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

It stands to reason then that if all speech is truly free eventually some speech will be censored. America doesn't allow people to say "Fuck" on public TV broadcasts, therefore all speech isn't free. No one is harmed by a curse word. Worst case a child will learn the word a few years earlier than when they usually do, and yet we censor that anyway.

Therefore, you can't say that all speech is free speech on all channels.

What you say in person may at worst get you into an altercation or ostracized, but you have the right to say it. Once your voice is amplified out of earshot you are no longer truly free to speak as you will.

You can say what you want to say, yes, but the repercussions of your words amplify with every repetition. Not everyone is aware of that, and when you are on a platform where, by words, you can incite a group to violence safely from the other side of the country, you should have your speech monitored and censored if need be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[tick_tock_tick]

Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits.

[didibus]

My read of Popper was that we should be prepared to even use force against intolerant people who are not willing to engage in rational debate.

What Popper didn't anticipate is that the square of public opinion would become the internet, and a big question this creates is if the internet is a place where rationale debate and proportional representation of ideas is possible or not.

If the internet were to make the public square of opinion a place of irrational debate, I think Popper would be very much against it, and would want us to do something about it.

Here's a quote from him:

> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols

So the condition he puts forward is: can we counter the intolerants on the internet by using rational arguments? If we can, than suppression (he claims) would be unwise, but if we can't, than suppression by force (he claims) might be warranted.

At least that's how I interpret Popper.

[throwaway316943]

To me it seems he’s clearly saying that if they decide to use force then we should be prepared to respond in kind not that we should use force to suppress irrational argument. The end of the first sentence maps to the end of the second.

[didibus]

How I interpret it is not that we should use force to suppress irrational argument, but that if we are failing to counter intolerance with rationale argument in the public opinion, than we should be prepared to do even more to counter it, maybe even to use force. And then he lists examples of what he'd consider cases where more than just countering with rationale argument would be justified, and those are: denounce all arguments, not willing to discuss at a rationale level, not willing to listen, believing they are being deceived, using pistols and fists.

[BizarroLand]

So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid?

Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me.

[tablespoon]

>> Go and actually read Popper and you'll find he was close to a free speak maximalist his views on when you shouldn't "tolerate" intolerance was an incredibly high bar that almost nothing ever hits.

> So, I should read 25 books to verify that your one sentence claim is valid?

> Why not back that up with some relevant quotes to support your thesis, friend? That seems a decent thing to do compared to the litany of homework you callously threw at me.

Your snark isn't warranted. The Wiki article you yourself cited says where Popper introduced the concept and even speaks about what his limitations were.

I will let you read that again to find them, rather than providing a quote.

[kbenson]

> Your snark isn't warranted.

Honestly, given the comment being replied to started with "go and actually read" I think the snark is warranted if they want. Also, for what it's worth I think they were trying to modulate that snark a bit by using "friend".

If it's truly easy to realize what is being asked, a pointer in the right direction is useful. If it does require a lot of work, then providing some evidence to at least get someone started if not an actual reference would be called for.

In any case, I'm not sure a comment that boils down to "if you actually read X, you'd know that what you just said is wrong" is worth defending, regardless of whether you think it's factually correct or not. You could have just pointed out that there was evidence of this position and left it at that.

For what it's worth, I only bothered to reply because you're not the only person that took the comment that way. The strongest possible interpretation of the prior comment is "This isn't helpful to me. If you're going to state I'm wrong, please provide more information on how so I can address that usefully" which I think is a vary valid complaint to what it was responding to. Interpreting snark where it doesn't necessarily exist or providing additional snark in your own in response (not that you did this) isn't a useful way to move the discourse forward.

[BizarroLand]

There's no snark intended.

Maybe using the word "callous" made it seem that way, but that is an accurate depiction of what their response was, rough, without thoughtfulness, the reflexive expression of an above average mind unconcerned with how their message was received.

[abecedarius]

Just look up where he wrote about this paradox of tolerance? It was in a footnote. (To guard, I'd guess, against people deliberately misinterpreting his words in the main text and going "Ha, look at this doctrinaire free-speech absolutist." I've read the book that was in.)

[BizarroLand]

Why does where it was written matter? Saying that it being written in the footnotes invalidates the argument is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

You would actually need to refute the argument directly for your assertion to have any weight to it.

[luckylion]

That's such a weird reply. You claimed, were told that it's not accurate, and then went on the offense with a slightly nicer version of "why should I read about the things I claim? How about you prove that it's not as I read on that one meme on imgur.com".

[BizarroLand]

I didn't ask why I should read it. I asked for what to read. If they so much as selected the single book they're basing their claim on that would cut down their homework assignment by 96%.

I don't need chapter and verse, just a homing beacon would suffice.

Besides, we're roughly adults here. Someone saying "Nuh-uh" to an oft-quoted article has the gravitas of damp toast. Why shouldn't I question their response?

[tick_tock_tick]

What the hell kind of response is this? You try to puppet Popper's work, I tell you that's not at all what he said, you affirm you never read any of it and complain it's unreasonable to expect you to read it.........

[BizarroLand]

Well, you're the first person I've encountered who has said that the well-known and oft-quoted bit of his work that I even provided a link to in wikipedia with quotes taken directly from is completely false in all regards.

You followed that up with a command to read more of his work without narrowing down out from which of his 25 books would provide any context to back your assertion up.

I just want a little more context than a single sentence from some person on the internet to re-evaluate my hypothesis. That shouldn't be too much to ask. Especially since you're asserting that you know more about the subject than the people who authored the Wikipedia page and every person who has written an article about it.

[bradknowles]

Your freedom of speech does not extend to yelling “FIRE!!!” in a crowded theater.

Your freedom of speech does not extend to inciting a riot.

There are obvious limits to “free speech”.

[causi]

Actually, it does extend to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. That is entirely legal, at least in the United States.

[BizarroLand]

No, it doesn't. Went to the Supreme Court, and that is not free speech. "the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has become synonymous with speech that, because of its danger of provoking violence, is not protected by the First Amendment."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

[dragonwriter]

> Went to the Supreme Court, and that is not free speech.

No, it didn't go to the Supreme Court.

> "the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has become synonymous with speech that, because of its danger of provoking violence, is not protected by the First Amendment."

While the phrase may be used that way, its referencing nonbinding dicta (expressions in a ruling that are not germane to the decision rule for the case actually before the court) that does not reflect preexisting law from a case that has since been almost entirely overruled and is widely recognized as being an aberration that (in its actual binding holding) allowed extensive government regulation of core protected political speech.

It reflects neither the law before the decision, the binding case law created by the decision, nor the state of the law after the decision was rejected.

[causi]

Why do people quote the Paradox of Tolerance as if it's unerring holy gospel and not just a philosophical idea?

[didibus]

Okay, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that hate speech and propaganda has been a part of almost all atrocities ever done in the past?

Or put some other way, how do you reconcile that your freedom can be affected by someone's else's freedom? Like what if I use my freedom to turn others against you and have them hate you and berate you and bully you and ridicule you and refute you, and potentially have them vote for laws that take actions against you, or possibly have them commit hateful acts towards you, etc.

[inglor_cz]

Not the OP, but basically you are complaining about humans. I am not convinced that by banning certain expressions you get any security against future oppression.

Stupid hateful people might get trapped by anti-hate-speech laws, but the smarter ones, precisely the ones you need to be careful about, are fairly good at avoiding them and may even use the threat of prosecution to raise sympathy from the part of population that dislikes the incumbent government.

Most European countries have vibrant extremist movements (left, right, Islamic) even though their freedom of speech is much more limited than the U.S. standard.

[didibus]

I see your point, and I think that needs thoughts for sure.

I think most people (including myself) don't know why some harbor hateful resentment and intolerant ideals. And it isn't clear how to deal with it. It's very possible that we need to resist the temptation to try and simply brush those people aside. But I think one thing that isn't clear is if one of the cause for this increase is related to the internet providing bigger megaphones to those smart ones who like to recruit members to their ranks.

And part of that for me is how recommendation algorithms on Twitter and Facebook and YouTube operate, it seems to be tuned towards sensationalized and hateful content. So it does give you the impression that those platforms are failing to educate people with values of tolerance, liberalism, freedom, and individual rights which the USA is founded on.

It's a great question though, you probably don't fight intolerance with intolerance, but at the same time, you might need to be ready to fight it if it comes to that. But how do you avoid having it reach this point?

[zozbot234]

I have no issue with people turning against, hating, berating, bullying, etc. me. These are simply matters of feeling and opinion. I do have a problem when other people feel entitled to escalate such conflicts by reacting to these unwelcome points of view with real, actual violence, including government censorship. Even, and perhaps especially, when these people are purporting to act in my defense.

[didibus]

Ok, but what are you referring too? Because I'm not sure I'm seeing any government censorship (except for maybe the voter suppression and the child protection laws as well as some of the anti-protest forces deployed by the government in recent protests like BLM). And I'm mostly seeing violence driven by hate speech, like the various shootings happening.

I would be very against government censorship or interventions against constitutional rights of free speech and right to assemble and protest, and right to vote.

Maybe I just don't have the data you have, but right now I'm not too sure I follow you.

[causi]

I would posit there's little correlation between hate speech laws and hate crimes.

For example, the United States has no hate speech laws. In 2017 there were 2,024 anti-Semitic incidents in the United States. Germany has very strong hate speech laws, both applying to private citizens and obligating online networks to censor them. In 2020 there were 2,032 anti-Semitic hate crimes in Germany. Despite restrictions on hate speech, Germany has four times the per-capita anti-Jewish hate crimes as the US, a country with no hate speech laws.

How about the UK? They have strong hate speech laws. You can get arrested there for teaching a dog the Nazi salute. In 2018 there were 1,201 Islamophobic attacks in the UK. Despite having a rabidly Islamophobic president at the time, the US only had 223. That's over twenty-six times the per-capita Islamophobic hate crime rate.

Citations:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/816732/number-of-anti-se...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...

https://thehill.com/regulation/international/499762-anti-sem...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/20/record-numbe...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims

[throwaway316943]

Bad example considering censorship is also a tool of murderous and totalitarian regimes.

[didibus]

Always in tandem with propaganda I feel. So it would censor criticism of the regime, and any opposite viewpoint, while replacing all voices with the pro-regime voices instead.

I'm not sure this is the same as letting one freely voice their hate of another and propagate lies and falsehoods about them.

I guess you see it as let's just all use propaganda and defamation against each other, and hopefully that evens out where we all meet in the middle through constant bi-directional propaganda and hatred.

But I see it more as let's not allow the use of propaganda and hate anymore, because those things are at the detriment of other people's freedom, and you should only be free to do what doesn't take away freedoms from others as well, unless it has been agreed between both parties through a contract and a system of laws.

I don't really have a proof that one would have better outcomes over the other, but personally I find having a civil debate in good faith with rational arguments is more pleasant than to have a demagogue debate in bad faith using appeal to prejudice, emotions, desires, falsehoods and defamation. So I'd rather we as a society needed to engage respectfully, rationally and in good faith, and I wouldn't mind this to be enforced both culturally and by law.

I've heard the "slippery slope" and the "what if that just radicalizes demagogues even more" arguments, and the latter one I find more possibly valid. I feel the slope isn't that slippery personally, like the slope would only slip if the person in power was again a demagogue ruling in bad faith, and at that point it be too late anyways, since they'd already be in power.

Now the argument that it could radicalize demagogues further, by giving them more ammo to justify themselves, I think that's a more plausible prediction. I'm not too sure about this bit yet, so I could be convinced here, but I'd need to also be convinced that letting demagogues continue to have large public reach isn't itself a bigger threat.

[sanderjd]

The privilege to broadcast thoughts to billions of people at no cost is one that we just invented in the last twenty years. It is not a right.

[throwaway316943]

In that case lets apply your principal evenly to all rights.

Freedom of movement: heading somewhere we don’t agree with, ok but you aren’t allowed to use public roads since we own those. Good luck getting to the voting station.

Freedom of assembly: we don’t support your protests cause, stay off public property, go hold your protest at your own house.

Freedom of conscience: fine think whatever you want but if you attempt to record it in any way we’ll block you.

A right without the means to act on it is nothing at all. You’re arguing for a society built like a prison. You should be ashamed.

[mcguire]

So you've nationalized Youtube, eh?

[tg180]

YouTube, as well as other major Internet companies, have a near-monopoly over their sectors which leaves them lacking any competitive drive to be better, do better, or for people to go elsewhere.

Without realistic alternatives it is spontaneous (even if erroneous) to think about the implication of private infrastructure over public rights. But the real matter is an issue of scale.

I am convinced that sooner or later governments will wake up and that the tech giants will be broken up or severely limited: the European GDPR and the Chinese crackdown on the sector are only the first signs.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/five-new-bills-a...

[mcguire]

I have no doubt that you are right. But that's a kind of censorship, too, isn't it?

[sanderjd]

Your examples are public places. My comment was about private entities.

[BizarroLand]

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you can see a flaw with a system does not mean there is a flaw.

Sometimes the flaw is with you & or your line of thought.

In this case, equating "not being allowed to post far-right propaganda on every concourse of communication" is not the same as being harassed at your own home because people are allowed to protest.

[commandlinefan]

Then it should be either:

a) removed from everybody or

b) removed from nobody.

[wintermutestwin]

>All these calls for censorship

Isn't the root problem here is the near monopoly held by god-tier corporations? Shouldn't FB/Goog have the right to moderate their content as they see fit? Shouldn't their network effect de facto monopolies be regulated so that there is room for other voices?

[starfallg]

>Truth

An illusion of truth can be created by repeatedly stating falsehoods by agents with an agenda to push. The question isn't about censorship, but rather how we can make our liberal democratic societies resistant to this type of manipulation, which inevitably results in terminal decline.

[gmadsen]

What I've come to realize is this asks far too much of the average person. Ideas do not win on their logical merits. Rationality is not the driving force of opinion for the majority of people. The alternative is probably worse, as some sort of totalitarian regime, but I just don't think billions of humans are capable of ensuring their own survival as a species

[throwaway316943]

A billion minds are better than one.

[sanderjd]

People have a right to speak, but they don't have a right to have their speech amplified by others. There is no right to broadcast. Mill would agree with this, assuming you could explain to him how broadcast media works, which didn't exist in his time.

[teakettle42]

Mill wasn’t talking about rights; he was talking about the propensity to suppress unpopular speech, why that’s dangerous, and accordingly, and the moral necessity (and implications) of open discourse.

[sanderjd]

Yes. And he's right about that. But I'm also right that private entities shouldn't be forced to broadcast things they don't want to.

[mcguire]

What happens if nobody listens to your proofs? What happens if they prefer the lie?

[teakettle42]

What you’re really asking is “What happens if people do not do what we tell them to do? What happens if they disagree with us?”

Is it appropriate to force people to adhere to your strictures if they won’t do so voluntarily?

[mcguire]

(So we've already given up on "Truth is not determined by a list of approved opinions, it can only be revealed by rigorously disproving everything that opposes it" then. Fine. Truth is relative.)

No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?"

What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth? Thoughts and prayers?

Does freedom come with any responsibility?

[teakettle42]

> No, what I'm really asking is, "What happens if innocent people start being hurt by the lie?"

That would suggest we might benefit from a better mechanism for establishing the truth.

The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate.

Do you have a better suggestion?

> What happens if you are seriously injured in an accident but cannot get medical help because the intensive care facilities are full of people who disagree with the truth?

The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated.

How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article?

> Thoughts and prayers?

Open and vibrant debate.

> Does freedom come with any responsibility?

Sure it does, though assessing culpability is often a nightmarish impossibility, especially a priori.

Should we establish prior restraints on individual’s freedoms to enforce correct speech and beliefs?

If not, then what exactly are you proposing?

[mcguire]

"The best mechanism we’ve come up with so far is open and vibrant debate.

"Do you have a better suggestion?"

I do not. But open and vibrant debate only works when people are capable of determining when the debate has been settled, at least for the moment. And are willing to accept the settled decision.

Have you ever had a serious chat with a creationist? Of course, there is no positive evidence that can disprove the young earth theory, any more than you can disprove solipsism. The creationist argument ultimately fails because of the implications of its own flexibility. I've known people who claim that the faster they drive, the better they drive. Or that they are perfectly safe to drive stoned or drunk. fortunately, in those cases culpability is, as you point out, is easy.

Anti-intellectualism comes in many varieties. Someone can be so skeptical that they do not accept any argument because, say, Big Media and The Man are out to oppress them...somehow. Someone else can be so un-skeptical as to believe the first comforting story that comes along in spite of any facts suggesting that reality is harsher.

Open and vibrant debate is the only way to establish the truth, but truth is not established by popularity, nor by who yells the loudest.

"The Rolling Stone story positing the above turned out to be entirely fabricated.

"How would you propose we stem misinformation like that Rolling Stone article?"

I have no idea what Rolling Stone article you are talking about. Is it one of these:

https://www.kwch.com/2021/08/25/family-mcpherson-man-dies-wa...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oregon-covid-19-patient-unable-icu...

https://abc13.com/us-army-veteran-daniel-wilkinson-michelle-...

"Open and vibrant debate."

Not really an answer to my question, but I'm sure it's very comforting to intensive care patients spending hours to days on gurneys in hospital hallways.

https://www.wtvy.com/2021/08/18/alabamas-hospital-crisis-int...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/patients-being-tran...

Freedom is easy if it doesn't come with responsibility, precisely because culpability is often a nightmare to identify. How many people are you willing to injure or kill in the name of freedom?

Should we just get used to the fact that there are no limits on lies and an idea just dreamed up by some rando on the internet is just as true as something from a so-called expert?

If not, then what exactly are you proposing?

[hermitdev]

This is really prescient with the ongoing "debate" around vaccine mandates.

[throwaway316943]

Conversely, what if your assumed truth is false and you successfully censor any attempt to disprove it?

[mcguire]

Conversely, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a great way to drum up an evening's entertainment.

[ZWoz]

Yelling "Fire!" in theatre is miscontructed-misunderstood idea and probably legal: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

[mcguire]

Excellent nit!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/inte...

[WillPostForFood]

What if only one truth is allowed, and it is wrong or a lie? You are putting all your eggs in one basket.

[mcguire]

Marx was almost right: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

Postmodernism, the first time around, was the comedy.

[artificialLimbs]

Then they will learn hard lessons.

[mcguire]

Or their victims.

[bradknowles]

You are free to hold whatever opinions you want.

You are not free to force me to listen to them.

[a_c]

Much debate in the society stems from unfalsifiability